Perhaps we should create a law that climate scientists be put to death if their predictions turn out wrong. No seriously. Some people do not believe in global warming and with the Al Gores of the world riding around in SUVs while talking of climate change and the Kyoto accord appearing to be a giant money grab I don't blame them. However if these people had a shit ton of skin in the game they would be more convincing.

So climate scientist, people are usually stuck in the lab getting shit paid for hours they put in, should be put to death for politician and spokespersons action?

Just because some spokesman for climate change uses a plane does not mean people using the data should be put to death or suffer the horrible consequences. Because if so, something worse than being wrong comes out: people not speaking up about what the hell is going on, and not giving people give a fair chance to reduce the harm by it.

I don't know why so many people take "global warming is happening" and "the threat of global warming is used for predatory intents" as two opposed propositions. Both could be wrong or true indepandently from one another.

Only if they make wrong public predictions. Wrong predictions are not benign in this case. Stopping the use of fossil fuels would put billions of people into poverty. Poverty is one of the main risk factors for disease and violence. If we follow them and they are wrong it would kill millions. And if they are not confident they would stop predicting before the law takes affect. On the other hand if they keep warning of danger it is likely convincing. People are not great at evaluating science, but they are well practiced at evaluating people. This brings things to their realm.

Last edited by Dream of Freedom on Wed May 08, 2019 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Only if they make wrong public predictions. Wrong predictions are not benign in this case. Stopping the use of fossil fuels would put billions of people into poverty. Poverty is one of the main risk factors for disease. If we follow them and they are wrong it would kill millions. And if they are not confident they would stop predicting before the law takes affect. On the other hand if they keep warning of danger it is likely convincing. People are not great at evaluating science, but they are well practiced at evaluating people. This brings things to their realm.

This is, of course, ridiculous, since the predictions being made are for years out. Do you favor executing their children for the poor predictions of their scientist parents? And your thesis that “people will be poor if we don’t use fossil fuels and therefore they’d get sick” doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny, either.

There are PLENTY of reasons to stop relying on fossil fuels besides climate change. God forbid that climate change isn’t an issue and we just end up with clean air and clean water. But I do believe the science behind man-made climate change is pretty clear.

Science is a process of testing and discarding hypotheses based on data. A process. Not a thing where you can do a test or two and declare you have The Answer.

And your thesis that “people will be poor if we don’t use fossil fuels and therefore they’d get sick” doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny, either.

From JAMA:
"There is a robust literature linking income inequality to health disparities—and thus widening income inequality is cause for concern. "
"The association between income and life expectancy, already well established, was detailed in a landmark 2016 JAMA study by Raj Chetty, PhD, of Stanford University, and colleagues. This study found a gap in life expectancy of about 15 years for men and 10 years for women when comparing the most affluent 1% of individuals with the poorest 1%. To put this into perspective, the 10-year life expectancy difference for women is equal to the decrement in longevity from a lifetime of smoking."
ttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2677433

Last edited by Dream of Freedom on Wed May 08, 2019 9:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

"There is a robust literature linking income inequality to health disparities—and thus widening income inequality is cause for concern. "

Yeah, well, that’s not the part I take issue with. Absolutely income inequality leads to disparate health outcomes.

You will note, however, that the US relies heavily on fossil fuels, yet we still have poverty and bad health. South Africa has the greatest inequality in the world, yet it’s NOT because they’ve given up on fossil fuels.

Well, this is sort of at the heart of why no political progress has been made. It can certainly be and is argued that for e.g. India (and to some extent China) that
damage from poverty > damage from climate change.

Whereas in the US and Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, etc.
damage from climate change > damage from poverty.

This set of equations is essentially what prevents a political resolution. Insofar people of the present manage to agree to pay a price now to prevent a greater cost from paid paid by the next generations, they are stuck figuring out who [in the present] should pay it.

Anyways, I think the most likely to be helpful political action any individual could take at this juncture would be to start attending meetings of local water supply board and regional watershed administration. It's much more tangible, and most anything that effects local water quality is likely to also effect climate change in due proportion.

Last edited by 7Wannabe5 on Wed May 08, 2019 11:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

@Dream of Freedom:
Your argument re: lower incomes also justifies action to mitigate climate change. Because people become poorer as weather patterns move further away from historical norms, invasive species move in, etc. for other climate effects.
As jacob points out, of course, 'which people' is always a relevant question.

Who will determine whether the pain I suffer from not being able to afford to pay for the energy necessary to foam my morning Caramel Macchiato is less than the hunger suffered by the child of a subsistence farmer who is not allowed to clear forest for field?

The former head of Natural Resource Studies at the Cato Institute changes his mind on climate policy, not because he sees the science differently now but because he learned more about risk management. Interesting read.

If we think about climate risks in the same fashion we think about risks in other contexts, we should most certainly hedge—and hedge aggressively—by removing fossil fuels from the economy as quickly as possible.